Listen up Christians

Because as we all know, there is a WAR on Christmas, very much the same as the current WAR in Iraq.  I agree that Christmas is not only a Christian holiday to many people.  Many people who celebrate Christmas are not Christians, like you say.  So pretty much, I agree with pretty much everything you say.  That's the way I would go about it.  Not the way the media is going about it.

did you see the daily show / bill oreilly thing about the war on xmas?

If not watch the "Secular Central" link here

The way I see it, whoever is giving the greeting can choose what they want to say.  I'm not going to force anyone to wish me a Merry Christmas.  Likewise, I don't really want anyone trying to tell me what I should say.  I think I'm capable of expressing my feelings on my own.  And I trust that if I do say Merry Christmas to someone who has different beliefs, they can recognize that there's a difference between me giving that greeting and me tying them down and forcing them to worship a certain way.  (OK so some people don't quite understand the distinction, but most should).

Obviously there's more to the "debate" than just greetings (trees, parties, federal stuff, etc.) but the greeting thing seems to be the one that reaches everyone and is one of the more ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.  You can't please everyone with everything you say.  Even happy holidays probably leaves some people out since I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses observe any kind of holiday.

That's not funny at all.  Well, except for where he said people shorten "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" to "Happy Holidays" because they have stuff to do.  Mildly amusing.

I'm a Christian and although I don't ever pay attention to oreilly except when other shows are making fun of him, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with most of what he says anyway.

The other stuff, I guess bothers me in that people are trying to wipe out the word Christmas, but that's there decision to make.  If stores don't want to put "Merry Christmas" in advertisements, that's their choice.  I think employees should be able to use whichever greeting they want though.  I don't know if stores have taken it to that level or not, I haven't payed that close of attention.

Holiday Tree is pretty lame I think, but whatever.  Political correctness is a sham anyway, because it's supposed to appease everyone, but that sure doesn't seem to be what happens.

wow, general agreement all around.

boy, that fills me with Holiday Cheer......or Christmas Cheer

The daily show thing isn't supposed to be funny haha, more sad than anything because to prove his feeble point Bill had to dig up a JOKE from a year ago. I personally just don't like the "you have to take anything down that could be, in the right light, construed as slightly nonsecular" people or the "I'm going to tell everyone I know to boycott [store x] because they said "Happy Holidays" when clearly I was Christmas shopping." people. I just hate it how no matter what happens nowadays it HAS to offend someone. Worse yet is that offending notion is almost always dealt with in a way that just offends someone else. More awful then that is it usually "offends" others who just think a group could be offended. Although I suppose to be fair [store x] is a pretty awful establishment to begin with.

Bottom line is this, businesses are selling for and greeting for more than one holiday. A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree. 99.99% of the population celebrates Christmas. Get over it already.

So i'm standing here dipping random food items into melted chocolate because we made too much for the CHRISTMAS cookies we were making, and I ran out of things to dip into it.  Well, I only did strawberries and tostitos.  But then I remembered that Jon's favorite dipping sauce was marinara.  And then how he liked that with chocolate.  But, i'm not going to go that far.  To sum things up, it's the holidays because of Christmas (and other religious related holidays) so quit being politically correct.   It's mostly commercialized, but that doesn't mean it has to be p.c.'d as well.  Give me a break, there are more important things to argue about, instead of whether people should be allowed to say Christmas.  Good lord.

Good Lord, indeed;)

I just got my new laptop!!!!!!!!!

Nice to see you christened it by hijacking a blog thread.

They shouldn't call them laptops.  It discriminates against people who don't have laps.  I am boycotting page 3 until all references to laptops are rephrased to "computers that can be placed on top of things".

Alex ties the two themes back together again. Kudos. I didn't however give you kudos when I commented on your myspace blog.

It isn't all about the Christmas vs Holiday debate but it's still classic Letterman - Letterman v O'Reilly

I basically have 0 respect for the host of The ******* Factor

I watched the Letterman show when O'Rielly was on. I also have watched it again now once the link finally provided me with the video.

I'm not a Bill O'Reilly fan. I'm not a fan of his style and I disagree with a lot of what he says. Granted I do agree with some stuff he says. But I don't watch his show (I do catch maybe a segment or two every few weeks though) and I'd rather not have him speak for me even on the views we do share.

I am a huge Letterman fan. I mean, I think Letterman is probably the funniest guy on tv and one of my all time favorite celebrities. Not just for his humor, but I just genuinely enjoy a lot of what he does. I think he's the best interviewer by far among all the late night hosts and he's quite intelligent.

But, it was clear that Letterman only had Bill O'Reilly on there to pick a fight with him. I found that a bit disappointing. Hey, if he wants to have a discussion with him and tell him he disagrees with what he says or does, that's fine. But that didn't really happen, and I don't think Letterman really wanted an actual discussion as much as he wanted a few opportunities to be a little nasty to O'Reilly. And you can disagree with me on this, I'm sure some poeple will, but I've seen a lot of Letterman interviews over the years and, not to sound weird about it, but I definitely saw a different demeanor than I have really ever seen out of him. The interview had a differnt pace and tone, his sarcasm came across as much more personal to him than it usually does, and he came across as legitimately nasty. Again, I've watched him for years and listened to countless interviews with all sorts of people (actors, athletes, politicians, pundits, etc.) and topics have ranged from silly to completely serious, and this honestly struck me as different and I honestly felt he just wanted to pick a fight. ( At the risk of sounding even more weird, it was even more apparent watching it on a full screen tv (as compared to the computer) because you could see the facial expressions better. Seriously.)
Anyway, the Christmas stuff was pretty benign, but even then Letterman was more rude than usual.

As far as the war stuff, agree with O'Reilly or not, I think it's important to understand the distinction between disagreeing with what Cindy Sheehan says and being mean to a grieving mother. As O'Reilly said, she has the right to say whatever she wants. But that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it. It may sound a bit heartless because she has certainly been through pain just about as great as anyone could experience in this world, but as terrible as it is it doesn't mean that disagreeing with her makes you unsympathetic. Certainly, she should be treated with a great deal of respect (as should everyone for that matter), but simple disagreement doesn't seem out of line to me. As O'Reilly infered, there are many other parents in her same situation, many who would disagree with Cindy Sheehan, and they should be treated with the same respect. Likewise, you are free to disagree with them or agree with them.

Anyway, I know it's not technically a debate, it's a talk show, but if I had to grade each of them as far as how well each actaully made their point, O'Reilly would have won by far. Honestly, he came across better on Letterman than he probably does on his own show as far as I'm concerned. If Letterman really wanted to make him look bad, he shouldn't have resorted to the insults mixed with arguments but just stuck to a few solid critiques of things O'Reilly has actually said. There's certainly enough to work with there.

woah parentheses insided of another set of them. That's unfortunate. Sorry.

But O'Rielly's points about Cindy Sheehan are taken out of context or interpreted the way he wants to hear them. At one point she said "the people getting killed over there are not terrorists." She didn't say we've never killed a terrorist. Early in the war most of the casualties were Iraqi civilians. Even most of the Iraqi soldiers are just idealologic youth who wanted a job that are convinced their side is in the right and willing to fight for it.

Also I couldn't find anything of her saying "In my opinion the Insurgents are Freedom Fighters" she just referred to them as freedom fighters, which is what they call themselves. The Green Bay Packers are still the Green Bay Packers whether I hate them, or make up another name, or not.

She's also a mother who lost a son, we don't know what that's like. She's just venting her frustrations, she's not some leftist conspiracy figurehead. People wouldn't know who she was or would have forgotten about her by now if people like Bill didn't keep talking about her.

I too thought it was an odd side of Dave. (He dips his pencil in Bill's water before he even comes out and his first question was about how his "holidays" went) But I decided to give Dave the benefit of the doubt for 3 reasons. 1) It's possible Bill was booked a long time ago and in the meantime said something that really struck a nerve with Dave.
2) The only reason Bill goes on other shows is to argue. (Since he came with notes I imagine he was prepared to fight this point and he would have brought it up if Dave didn't) The whole thing was probably rehearsed once anyway.
3) Bill's an asshole.

First off, The case of the school in wisconsin is almost completely made up by Bill OReilly. The words to the song he read were written in the 80s for a play involving a Christmas tree that nobody would buy. But OReilly doesn't like speaking the truth. The OReilly factor is the Spin-Zone. I watch the Oreilly factor on a fairly regular basis(don't ask me why) and every single show OReilly is doing presnting something as fact when he is either leaving out important details or almost fabricating stories that promote his conservative ideology.

On the Fair and Balanced thing that Letterman brought up I have this to say: OReilly is the farthest thing from fair and balanced. Let me explain. I'll take 2 writers and explain why OReilly is not fair or balanced. Ann Coulter and Al Franken. These are too individuals are political opposites. One is an extreme leftist, one is an extreme right-winger. According to OReilly, Al Franken is a lier, he takes things out of context to vilify individuals, and he is a bad American. Ann Coulter, however, is on Bill's show fairly often. He rarely shows open disagreements with her, he defends her when others attack her, and he won't denounce her when she says that she wishes the terrorists had hit the New York Times building or that liberals should be executed or beaten with a baseball bat or any of the other absolutely hateful things she says. CNN does not take Al Franken seriously. FOX News and Bill Oreilly not only take Ann Coulter seriously, they support her beliefs. There is nothing fair or balanced about this.

I was uncomfortable during the letterman-oreilly exchange. Letterman has always seemed to be a warm, kind, humurous individual, and I think he took on a little more than he was capable of handeling. I can't say that I think Letterman came out on top, but I do know that Bill OReilly seems to love situations like this because now he can show it on his show and his ego and his business will continue to grow. OReilly seems to think that if you actually cannot argue point for point than he won the Arguement and you not agreeing with him is a sign of a left-wing radical.

I just want to say that when it comes to things other than sports, this is about the most civilized group of people with which to carry on a debate. So thank you. I appreciate knowing that I can disagree with people without being made to feel inferior. So let the debate rage!

One more thing:

Bill's "I had a wonderful Winter Solstice" comment was proof that he came to the show with some sort of agenda. There were like 5 good seconds of awkward silence on the part of dave letterman. There was a sense of absolute shock that went throughout the crowd. I think that if there was a fight that was picked, Bill OReilly dropped his gloves the moment he opened his mouth.

Well if you and I didn't pigheadedly debate meaningless sports related "what ifs" there would be no content on page 3 other than this Blog post. :)

The fact that Franken gets shouted off shows and Coulter is accepted infurriates me.

I'll add to this later, I have some work to do, but just somethings I can find quickly.

Coulter believes:

Jimmy Carters acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize during wartime was a case of Treason (which is punishable by death by the way)

it's patriotic to murder Communist Americans

the state should be able to prohibit contraception

Some more -

She uses blurbs out of the opinion pages of newspapers to "prove" that paper is liberal.

Librals favor anarcy and fundamentalist Islamic theocracy, nothing like favoring two polar opposited at the same time.

Liberals hate America and civilization.

fathers of children born out of wedlock shouldn't have parental rights and that mothers of children born out of wedlock shouldn't get child support.

A few things:

I don't like Franken or Coulter.

O'Reilly is a blowhard and can be an idiot at times, but I generally agree with him on many issues.

Coulter may be "accepted" on Fox, but Franken has the run of talk shows (like Letterman/Daily Show/etc.) where he says pretty much whatever he wants and it is lapped up, and on the few times when he is challenged, he plays the "comedian" card.

Cindy Sheehan's story is certainly tragic and entitles her to sympathy and some leeway, but it doesn't and shouldn't immunize her from criticism when she (repeatedly) made outlandish statements.

As for Jeremy's contention that we wouldn't know who she was if not for people like O'Reilly, that's just crazy. It was the mainstream media who made her a story because they wanted to stick it to Bush, and when she started to make outlandish comments, they ignored them so she wouldn't be discredited.

John Leo has a nice column dealing with these last two points here.

Yeah her initial coming out and protest at GWB's ranch was widely publicized but the mainstream media has beaten 100 other stories into the ground since then.

The problem is the right wingers have been beating her into the ground and saying simmilar things about her since back when she was just a mother protesting a cause her son died in.

Also Coulter on CNN/Fox News weekly and Frankens monthly visits to a cable talk show aren't quite the same thing.

For the record Coulters beliefs are perfectly fine. She's crazy, but that's fine. The point is more about the fact that why is one person not worth listening to while another is.

You can say liberal media all you want, that doesn't make it true. It's just picking and choosing what you want to see and hear. Everyone at North High School "knows" the Leader-Telegram favors Memorial despite having no evidence of it, but try telling someone from North that the Leader Telegram doesn't support them and they laugh like you're crazy. You say something enough, it gets so ingrained in people that any challenge to it is laughable. Tell people the great wall of china isn't visible from space and they'll look at you like you're crazy.

It's called spin; get enough people to repeat something enough times and it becomes bible truth.

Any "examples" of left wing media anyone ever comes up with are examples of more prominent problems in the media.
1) If it bleads it leads. "100 dead today in Iraq" grabs more attention than "a family farm was rebuilt today in Iraq".
2) With all the 24 hour news channels everyone has to scoop everyone else so stories are reported with absolutly no facts.
3) With all the 24 hour new channels everyone has to report 24 hours on a 5 minute story. Every molehill gets turned into a mountain. "Happy Holidays" becomes "THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS" (a very left wing story by the way.) Every 10 minute story becomes a week long endevor with "updates" and "graphics".
4) The media is at its peak amount of over supply with no product in the history of the us. The Republicans are in power. If some politition is speaking somewhere and does something worthy of 0-5 minutes worth of coverage chances are they are republican. However the same media derailed the campaign/career of Dean, who at the time looked like he was the most popular thanks to blowing out of proportion one speech/yelp. Even crossfire which featured "hosts" from both sides of the fence went out of their way to choose a quiet, more middle-of-the-road guy as the "liberal" half.

TV Talk shows are entertainment. FOX news claims to be news. David Letterman is entertainment. Jay Leno is entertainment. Conan is entertainment. Bill OReilly claims to report news. Sean Hannity claims to report news. Yet these two "news" journalists take Ann Coulter seriously. Comparing Leno and OReilly is like comparing Football to Broadway.

So to recap. Only entertainers take Al Franken seriously basically to help ratings, and FOX News supports and promotes Ann Coulter because they believe she is right.

While it may not be as bad as some claim, there is no doubt to me that there is a liberal bias in the media. When the overwhelming majority of journalists identify themselves as liberal, its hard for there not to be, even if maybe unintentional/subconscious for the most part.

If the news shows are so starved for content, then you would think that maybe some good news from Iraq would get some airtime once and a while seeing as there is nothing else right. :)

If you want good examples of media bias, just look at the headlines for the next article on economic news. The economy is booming, yet everytime "good" news about the economy is released the media will never allow it to stand alone, they always seem to find some downer piece of info to tack on the end.

For Dean, the rant was just the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. The rant came after his disappointing display in the Iowa caucus. Voters were already weary of him and he was losing steam.

Still Dean snagged the DNC chairmanship where he continues to make some silly or outrageous remark every few weeks, yet they hardly make any press, If Ken Mehlman said some of the things Dean has said we would never hear the end of it.

That brings me to a larger point. People on the left like Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson get passes from the media for their antics but whatever crazy thing of the week someone like Pat Robertson says gets automatic airplay, even though he is probably far less influential in the GOP than the other two are in the Democratic party.

Well most people period if asked where they stand on verious issues would be liberal, we just live in a "he who has the loudest voice" society.

If Howard Dean or Jesse Jackson ever call for the assassination of a foreign leader, They will probably get criticized a little bit. I'm not saying there isn't a liberal bias in the media. But if indeed there is, that doesn't make FOX News fair and balanced. Today, Wolf Blitzer said that many Democrats have issued an early verdict on the Alito hearings, but he didn't mention the early verdict that most republicans have come to already.

Liberals tend to be journalists, conservatives tend to go into business. I'm not sure why, but I think that's the way it is. But there is nothing I have seen heard, or read that has convinced me yet that FOX news is Fair and Balanced. CNN is far closer, and still much more trusted by the more Americans than Fox News.

Also addressing the "if they have all the time in the world they should have time for the positives in Iraq" well that would be true, if they every reported on anything worth noteing ever. The death toll headline I mentioned usually gets it's play as a ticker. The people on the screen are far to involved updating us on day 124 of some girl that was kidnapped or day 945 of one families struggle with a family member on life support or day 292 of a wife running out on her wedding. They don't have time to sqeeze in updates on events in the world.

I've never been a fan of Letterman so I don't watch it often. I don't really watch Leno or Conan either anymore actually. Anyway, I had to watch the clip to get up to speed here. I'd say Letterman pretty much got owned in this interview. I don't think he even made a single decent point, comment, or question. Certainly OReilly was prepared to discuss certain topics, but he'd have to be a complete moron not to be ready to discuss those things as they've been hot topics recently. It's not my place to say what Letterman is like normally, but this was a terrible interview, and he acted like a jerk.

Agree with Jeremy on the 24 hour news comments, not so much on the most people would be liberal on various issues. For one thing how could you possibly know this? I object your honor, and move to have the comment stricken from the record, this is speculation.

I'm assuming someone said this or it wouldn't be coming up, but I honestly don't know so I'll the question. Who claimed that FOX News was fair and balanced?

And to go back to the Letterman OReilly thing, it is an entertainment show and I think the Winter Solstice comment was as much a bad attempt at sarcastic humor as it was any sort of fight picking. A good host would've rolled with it somehow, instead of pausing for 5 seconds and having a staring contest.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/rauch/20050215.htm

I didn't mean nesisarily Party alignment (although 49% of the population says Dem while 48% says repub) political parties are arbitrary. One time at Copps' a coworker and I found out that a 40 year old female cashier was a republican. She had voted Republican without fail in every election she could vote in. However when asked further about the "issues" she went Democrat on almost everything.

I meant more on a case by case issue. For example, only 41% of the population things Gays should get no legal form of being married, yet when put to an actual vote measures to legalize gay marriage/civil unions was overwhelmingly shouted down.

13% of the population wants creationism as an explanation for the orgin of life in schools along with evolution, 16% want it to replace evolution, but you wouldn't know that from the overwhelming about of press the issue is getting.

You would think the issue was 50/50 if not more in favor of adding "Intellegent Design" as an option.

What really gets me is when people completely and diliberately misrepresent Christianity. As a Christian and as a Left-of-Center political believer, I am completely TOed when I hear guys like Jerry Falwell say that you can't be a Christian AND a Democrat. To me, that is much much much differnt than Howard Dean saying republicans are corrupt. I don't agree with Howard Dean on a lot of issues (I do think his comments get played just as much as everyone else's, by the way) but he is not telling me that I am not getting into heaven because of my political beliefs. When guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter and even Bill OReilly (the last 2 are the worst, at least Falwell and Robertson are Pastors) start chiming in about what Christians think about immigration and economic tax rates, they aren't pulling any of their statements from the Bible. They are pulling their assumptions from the fact that Christians tend to be conservative. It's a false logical argument to say that I'm "Christian because I'm conservative" or "I'm Conservative because I'm Christian." Being conservative and being Christian are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually dependent. That's the problem I have with conservative Christians in the spotlight. I'll take Howard Dean's and Al Franken's and Any other liberal's "God-bashing"(if you want to call it that) because I know that persecution and ridicule is part of being a Christian. Getting divisive rhetoric from Christian Zealots is not what the Bible promotes, and that is why I have such a problem with guys like Pat Robertson.

Yeah, I saw a bumper sticker one time that said "You can't be pro choice and Catholic" and it made me mad. Really not even because I'm both, more so just because of the insinuation that there is no way to reconcile having your own beliefs and respecting that not everyone shares your beliefs.

I don't think people understand that you can LOTHE something, but still know that not everyone feels the same way. You can be vehemently anti-abortion and still pro-choice.

I know you weren't implying party alignment, but it's still a sweeping generalization that you have now backed up with a grand total of one specific example. This is how people get mislead, someone makes a claim like this and then it gets repeated and all of a sudden its fact. I don't personally know if it's a valid claim or not.

The problem with teaching evolution is that it is no more scientific fact than creationism. And just because 29% of the population (I'm always suspect of polls too) isn't a majority, that doesn't mean those peoples opinions are entirely insignificant.

The problem with describing Christianity and Catholic is that they are two rather generic catagories. Any discussion of such generally results in sweeping generalizations, unless a specific set of beliefs is implied to be understood by everyone. Knowing that, I would in general catagorize myself as Christian opposed to Buddhist, but I pretty much ignore all these stereotypes by people who try to lump all Christians together, because for the most part that doesn't make any sense. The only thing that bothers me then, is if I tell someone I'm Christian and they assume said stereotypes to be true.

Well I don't know how I am supposed to backup any comment on public opinion without public opinion polls. Almost every poll I've ever seen on a "hot button" issue leans leftward.

As for the Evolution thing to say there's no more evidence (although you used the word fact, and I don't think gravity or the earth going around the sun are "science fact") is obsurd. It's the best scientific hypothesis we have and is backed up by evidence we can smell, touch, and see. If you don't beleive the theory then that is fine, a person can beleive whatever they want.

If we start having to mention any beleif that is a possibility in a high school science class than the possibility we were put here by aliens has just as much scientific evidence as creationism.

Instead of worrying about science curriculum, maybe we should be worried about teaching everybody how to spell.

Repeat after me..... i before e, except after c.

Also, the Google toolbar has a spellcheck built right in. Not using it strikes me as absurd.

Toolbar add-ons strike me as a waste of screen space and resources. Also, apparently the Google toolbar doesn't have a grammar checker because spellcheck is a verb, not a noun.

Even just giving that explanation that in your experience, most polls that you've that seen leen to the left is at least some basis for your statement. The way you presented it in the first place you seemed to be stating it is as a known and accepted fact.

The problem with science is that there really is no such thing as fact. I don't think creationism should replace evolution, but I don't think evolution should be taught as fact. Because I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any single-celled bacteria turning into ape like pseudo men recently, so I don't know what evidence you're talking about.

I don't think it is taught as fact. The scientific process is clearly covered. The fact that very little in science is actually 100% proven fact is clearly covered. Realistically you could never prove Evolution no matter how much evidence you have, but we'd be cave people if we dismissed every hypothesis that isn't 100% law.

I personally believe human beings--that is, man and woman--were created.

That being said, I have this to say. Creationism does not belong in a science lecture for this reason: Creationism is an argument from silence. What does this mean? Creationist scientists go through the same scientific process that all scientists go through when finding evidence for theories and hypotheses. They have examples of species that they believe could not have evolved from any other life form for the reason that there are no lifeforms similar to the ones they are speaking of. If this is true, which it very well could be, the conclusion comes from the "non-existance" of a species that meets their criteria. In my extremely uneducate opinion, this is not a very critically thought out conclusion. I happen to believe it, but I would never win an argument with anyone over this issue.

And Matt's most recent comment was quite enjoyable

Spellcheck (see Usage)
and
Spellchecker (see derivatives)

I contend that I am at least partially justified to use spellcheck as a noun.

To stave off any other criticism, I believe that in my previous post the phrase "I contend that I am at least partially justified in using spellcheck as a noun." would have been more correct than what I wrote.

Well it would depend too on what the definition of "new species" is. It's a common misconception of evolution theory that in order to have an animal with say a 2 foot long tail evolve into one with no tail that there has to be fossils with a 23" tail, some with a 22" and so on. Birth defects happen and evolution could have occured in leaps and bounds. Also saying an animal didn't come from anything would require having every fossil on the planet available, which is not the case. The kicker, as I aluded to before, is that neither side is provable at all. The problem creation scientists have in the scientific community is that they started with an rock hard, immovable, idea and set out to prove it (they contend the Grand Canyon is proof God created the Earth because given that the Earth is only 7,000 years old it couldn't have formed that fast otherwise). The "correct" way is to look at the evidence, form a hypothesis, and set out to DISprove it, changing the hypothesis along the way if need be.

Also like stated earlier even if evolution is proven to be 100% bulldink that doesn't automatically mean the Christian God put us here. Maybe it was one of those Asian Gods. I heard God speaking one time, I'm pretty sure it was Asian. Maybe it was aliens kicking the screw ups off their planet. Maybe, as Scientologists beleive, we are simply alien souls but here by an evil alien overload after a mass genocide of the universe.

If parents want to teach their children creatonism that's fine. If you want them to learn about it in school then send them to a private school. You can't have a science class in a public school, teach them the scientific method, hand them a fossil, and then the next day give them Genesis and say "this is all the proof we need."

Besides isn't faith supposed to be hard? If every child believed in creationism essentially by default because it was the only thing they ever knew what would that accomplish? Why would God give us free will if he didn't want to make people choose between faith in something and something they are being shown? If I were God I would rather have 5 true followers than 50 people who believe only because they were never presented with an idea to the contrary.

Jeremy's last point is very relevant.

I disagree entirely with the premise in Jeremy's last point. Either you believe or you don't. Whether or not that's the only thing you've ever been presented with is irrelevant, because human beings are sinful and therefore are the breeding grounds for all the other "ideas" that have ever been presented to anyone. Also, I don't see how you can make a distinction between "true followers" and "those who believe".

The purpose of faith is not to suffer persecution as some sort of trial that people need to pass. Having faith and not partaking in the sinful activities of this world do often make things more difficult, but that's more of a side effect of faith then the reason for faith.

What evidence in favor of evolution are you refering too? I did go to private school until college, so I don't know what kind of evolutionary "facts" are being taught in public schools. Also, I find it humorous that you refered to birth defects as a possibility of how evolution proceeded by leaps and bounds, given that the word defect means "The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming. See Synonyms at blemish."

Here's my evidence. The theories of science are an ever-changing group of truths. We laugh now at the science of 100 years ago. And 100 years ago they laughed at the science 100 years before that. And 100 years from now people will be laughing at the science of today. Therefore, science is hardly fact and will never even come close to explaining certain things, such as the origin of life. So maybe schools shouldn't teach anything about the origin of life.

Well then schools shouldn't teach anything about anything if that's your argument.

Say a birth defect, like a creature being born albino, helps that creature surive longer because it lives in a snow covered area. As such it not only is more likely to give birth to albino offspring because of it's genes but because it surived predidation longer it had more offspring than the other of it's kind.

An opposible thumb is just a "deformed" big toe.

There are no "facts" so to speak, it's a theory based on findings of remains in layered and geographically layed out virtually drawing a timeline. Theory: "a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena"

That the earth goes around the sun is still a theory at this point, so if a group of parents got together and wanted it added to text books that the earth is the center of the universe, and possibly flat, should we do that to?

How do you truely have faith in something if it's the only thing you know?

Why was there a big toe on a hand in the first place?

I think it's been sufficiently proven that the earth is not flat. Satellites, planes, etc. are dependant on that fact. There's no such demonstration of evolution, nor will there ever be.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." I think there are stumbling blocks put in our way to test our faith. Maybe evolution is one of those stumbling blocks. People are looking for evidence for something like God, but I guarantee you they will never find the evidence they are looking for if they keep looking for tangible evidence or the proverbial "sign from above".

Now on to my second comment. Not all theories are equal. The Theory of relativity or gravity for that matter have been proven that, from everything we know about this world, an apple will always fall towards the earth. The earth being round is not a theory, it is a fact. The earth rotating around the sun is not a theory, it is a fact. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, based on observation and concluded the same way most theories are concluded. But, being a theory, it is open to the possibility that it could still be wrong. I don't care if schools teach this, but it seems inaccurate from a scientific point of view to teach it as 100% fact instead of "according to this theory".

Actally gravity is still a theory, at the moment most people are going with Einstein's theory, but there is some competition out there.

My science classes taught little to nothing as 100% fact. Just because every class period didn't start with a disclaimer that what we are about to talk about isn't 100% proven doesn't mean the fact that everything is a work in progress wasn't implied. Everyone knew the scientific process and what the word "theory" in "The Theory of Evolution" meant.

On your first point Scott, not only will they never find the evidence they're looking for but isnt trying to prove God exists actually "against the rules" anyway?

I'm not sure about it being "against the rules" but at best it may not be necessary. I don't think people are going to be any more likely to believe in God if Noah's Ark is proven to be what many call the Ararat Anomaly. Trying to prove God exists didn't work when Jesus walked the earth, and it seems futile now. I think the problem is people who are trying to prove God are going about it in the wrong way. People trying to prove God are still looking for solid evidence, which is going to be hard to find. But in my opinion, I'm not sure that finding "proof" of God will do much to change the hearts and minds of people who don't already believe. So if it's not against the rules, it is most likely unnecessary.

My point of my second point kind of was there are some scientific ideas that have been made into laws. Law of thermodynamics, law of motion, whereby we understand that certain things will always happen a certain way. Thinking back to high school, I can't really say that evolution was taught as the end-all of scientific discovery, but there also seemed to be very little doubt by those teaching it. Basically, I believe people were created, and so I don't think that evolution of humans is correct, but in the end I guess, if someone wants to believe in God this isn't going to stop them, and if someone does not want to believe in God, hearing evolution being taught isn't going be what determines their lack of faith. That last sentence is based on my personal beliefs, not on science.

I dont know...If someone provided me with irrefutable scientific evidence of god, I would probably start believing in god

maybe, but Jesus provided irrefutable evidence by raising people from the dead and healing cripples, and many people still didn't believe.

That's hardly scientific, plus I'd be willing to bet a majority of the people there believed, but for everyone else it would be hearsay.

If it happened today no body would believe it, they would assume it was a magic trick.

Even if we were to recover the Ark that would only "prove" the story was at least based on a true tale. It would be very hard to prove anything.

One of my history teachers in middle school once said that as a history text we had no reason to disbelieve the bible. As a retelling of the times it was as historically relevant as any other text historians base knowledge of the times off of. He said that, for example, he had little doubt there was a person named Jesus Christ and that much of his life was described accurately (such as the fact that he was crucified.)

In other words the issue then is was Christ the person Christians believe he is, or just a guy.

Proving events in the described in the bible happened wouldn't really prove anything other than the author took a real happening and ran with it. In a sense it would be like being handed a history text book and then setting out to prove George Washington was real.

So it would be really hard to prove God exists and really shouldn't be proven. In my opinion it's not faith if it's the only thing you know (and therefor didn't actually choose it) or if you know something to be 100% true. A profound opinion given the dictionary definition: Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I agree about the subject of Faith. As the Bible says, "faith is hoping in what we do not see, for who hopes for what he already has." It is unnecessary to try and prove that God exists. Those who believe already believe, and those who don't already will not be making a decision by faith. I'm also not sure that it is possible to prove God anyway.

As far as Jesus being who Christians believe he is, or just a guy: Many believers will say that either Christ is everything he said he is, or he is a complete crazy lunatic that no one should take seriously. And frankly, I think I agree. Jesus made some very radical statements. He claimed to be the Son of God, he claimed that could raise the temple in 3 days (and he did, according to Christian beliefs), he claimed that he will come back to establish his kingdom, He claimed to be the only way into heaven. These are pretty far fetched ideas written down from people who lived with him on a daily basis. In my opinion, he's either right or he's wrong. If he's right, than he is everything he says he is. But if he's wrong, or if he is just a guy, then he would be along the lines of a Branch Davidian cult leader. I believe it's the former.

Not that it's really on subject per se but Scott's post reminded me of something I always though was funny/sad. It's a basic tenet, perhaps the most basic, that Christ will come to Earth again. If however some guy showed up claiming to be Jesus in today's world no one would believe him. Perhaps he has already come and we killed him off in an invasion of some cult's compound. I guess there would be signs, and he would reach people on a broader spectrum then 30 people in Texas I suppose, but it's something to ponder. Christians have been awaiting the return for 2000 years, yet when he shows up how many will beleive he is who he says he is?

Isn't the world supposed to end when Christ returns? I figure I would know he was here as the four horsemen were running through the streets and Christ was determining my final judgement.

Also, this question was already answered when Gozar the Gozarian, the Destructor, came to earth in Dana Barrett's refrigerator and aligned the Gate Keeper and the Key Master. Clearly, we will be saved as we have been from countless entities described in Tobin's Spirit Guide throughout the years.

To answer your question, Jeremy, Jesus addresses this. I might look it up later to give the actual quotation. Actually I think there's more than one. The basic idea of the passages though are this. When he comes this time, everyone will know it. The first time he came, it was without a lot of fanfare and it happened in relative secrecy and calm. The next time, it will be extremely apparent.

Matthew Chapter 24
23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the electif that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.

26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.


Luke chapter 21
25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

Ah, so maybe the hurricanes aren't God punishing us but rather the second coming has begun.

Seriously though if I hear one more reference to a terrible tragedy happening because God is punishing the U.S. I think I might snap. First of all as ambassadors of Christianity they should always remember the "you'll catch more flies with honey rule". Secondly, if it's not God that's pretty blasphemeous. Thirdly, and I'm no biblical scholar (so correct me if I'm wrong) but following the flood doesn't God promise Zoah, and in turn mankind, he wont do anymore widespread, many people die, kinds of punishments?

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to assassinate some foreign leaders.

Noah

And I'm not sure what God means by "I will never destroy the earth in this way again" when refering to the flood. The old testament is full of events where many people die, but usually it is the result of a war or battle, not natural disastors. Either way, I'm not a fan of hearing that every time we have a bad storm that God is mad at the united states. Because unlike Israel of the old testament, the United States is not a nation. It is a country. I can't figure out why God would punish those he is "mad at" and risk punishing those who are believers. When God destroyed the cities of Soddom and Gomorah, Abraham tried to talk God out of it, and God eventually started a sort of haggling with Abraham. Abraham asked if there were 50 righteous people, do not destory the city. He finally talked God down to 5 righteous people, but God could not find even 5 people who believed so he destroyed the city. As bad as a city like New Orleans is, it's not Soddom. There are Christians all over the place in New Orleans, and probably most every other city in America. It wouldn't make any sense to me if hurricanes were a punishment, because it is inconsistent with the character of God as described in the Bible.

Ha, at first I'm like why did you just say "Noah" and then start talking, then I read my post again. I'm not sure where the Hell Zoah came from, maybe I have some sort of 90 degree dyslexia. Although to be fair the N and Z are only separated by...well the entire keyboard I guess. At any rate I don't know how it happened, just rest assured I didn't actually think his name was "Zoah".

Not only is it inconsistent with Old Testament God it's certainly inconsistent with New Testament Jesus, which I thought was supposed to be the focus.

I agree with Jon's comments about Christ's return. I was thinking of a different passage (2 Peter 3:10), but then I read the whole chapter and it addresses pretty much all the recent posts. I won't post the whole thing here but I'd suggest a read to those interested.

I think what God meant by his promise to Noah was that he would never wipe out 99.9999% of the population of the world while at the same time wiping clear the face of the planet with a flood. Not to make light of recent natural disasters, but they are nothing compared to the flood at the time of Noah. Also I would add that there are multiple accounts of droughts and famines in the Old Testament which I think would qualify as natural disasters.

I couldn't remember or find any specific quotes about God's use of disasters as punishment, but I don't think He does so in the way that its being discussed here. Natural disasters are a consequence of sin entering into the world, and they affect everyone.

I think you're making a dangerous distinction in comparing the "Old Testament God" to the "New Testament Jesus". God is eternal and unchanging.

I agree with icbeast (Alex?) on pretty much everything he said. Upon thinking of it, I would consider famines and droughts natural disasters, but those are much more drawn out than like a gigantic earthquake or a rain of fire and brimstone like happened at Soddom.

I think what Jeremy was trying to say, without making too many assumptions, is that there is a sort of shift between the way God brought upon judgement in the Old Testament and the way he will bring judgement in the New Testament. The judgement in the OT was sudden and to the point, and usually for something very specific (although not always). The judgement in the NT (which we are a part of) will also be somewhat quick, but it will mark the end times, (which we may also be living in). Also, the disasters in the Old Testament were documented with words from God himself, while we are kind of left to speculate about disasters in the present day. Unfortunately, when someone comes forth and says that the hurricanes are acts of God, they get ridiculed for it. However, I don't think it's very beneficial to go on TV and say that God is mad at the US(Pat Robertson, I'm looking in your direction), because it is simply speculation to a degree as to WHY the hurricane happened. Was God mad and thus struck down the city of New Orleans? OR Did God simply allow this to happen? Why doesn't something like this happen in Wisconsin? Why have people in Indonesia and Lousiana and India been hit while I've been living safe and sound in Wisconsin probably not living any more wholesome of a life as many others who perished in the disasters? No one has a definite answer to any of these questions. They are questions worth discussing, but no one will ever come to a solid, irrefutable conclusion. But they are still hard, and they honestly leave me with many more questions of my own sometimes. The only conclusion I have come up with is that I have faith that God is a loving and just God and that he does rule justly, and I believe that he knows way more about what he is doing than I will ever understand. That's all for now.

Time to start teaching this too

That is awesome...I want to party with those people.

Most of the passages that are referenced as saying the sun revolves around the earth are passages that are talking about the sun rising and setting. Some of the others refer to founding the earth and preserving it, which I assume they are interpreting to mean that it never moves. I have no idea what the passages in the books that aren't actually books of the Bible say. They probably do say that the sun revolves around the Earth since they were written and added in by man. That's probably the problem.

Anyway, I don't think anyone will be collecting the reward anytime soon, since as Jeremy alluded to before, if you want to get really technical and theoritical about science there's pratically nothing that you can prove to 100% certainty.

Also technically speaking everything does revolve around the earth, you could argue any arbitrary point is the center.

In case some one would just assume I'm kidding I decided I should clarify what I meant. Technically speaking everything revolves around everything. The Earth doesn't revolve around the sun, the earth and sun both orbit a spot between them. Imagine a teeter totter with a car on one end and a golf ball on the other. There is a point where they would balance, and it would look like the car was in the middle, and for all intents and purposes it would be, but technically it wouldn't be. Gravity also has a pull for infinate distance, but it's effect diminishes with distance, so the earth also "orbits" the north star, and the andromeda galaxy. Likewise all those things are effected by earth's gravitational pull. So technically speaking the earth IS the center of the universe...but so is everything else.

The other books in question are from the Catholic Bible, which has 5 additional books than does a Protestant Bible.

Strangely enough, I think Jeremy has a point. Not strange in the fact that jeremy actually has a point, but seriously, where the crap did you pull all that scientific mumbo jumbo and form it into coherent thought that actually makes sense?!?

However, I never would have really thought about the fact that something is simple as believing that the Earth revolves around the sun might not actually be the case. It's basically saying that it can never be proved in the way that it can be seen and observed and recorded. It's all a great mystery, and as long as I have the belief that God is controlling all of it anyway, I'm not worried about which way it is.

I took an astronomy class. I was one of my favorites, if you have a physics GE to burn it's an awesome class.

The thing is theres still a difference between what I said and what these people are arguing. I was argueing semantics, we all know that the earth goes around the sun. (But the sun, and all stars with planets, do "wobble" a bit because of the planets pulling back.)

My original point for posting this is that this guy is somewhat prominent in the religious world (he has his own page on wikipedia and everything). What happens if his movement gains momentum. Technically no one can PROVE we orbit the sun, so should we teach kids it's possible everything goes around the earth?

Also out of curiousity what extra books do us catholics have?

Wisdom, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, and Judith. They are all old testament books. I'm not 100% sure why the Catholic version of the Bible has these books and a Protestant Bible doesn't, but from what I've heard there is question as to whether or not these books had anything to do with anything.

I see your point from the first post. And frankly, I have no clue.

Since I actually have time to say what I want to, I'll comment now, although some of it is an overlap of what has been said. As I see it...
The verses listed aren't contrary to the view that the earth revolves around the sun. Interpreting Scripture is a difficult subject at times, and I won't claim to know the meaning behind everything, but for all the talk on the website about literally reading Scripture, it would seem that they extrapolate the truths of it into their own models for viewing the world.
Some of the verses talk about the rising of the sun and the setting of it. There's a big jump from that point to the mandatory construction of an "earth-centered universe" view. (And on that subject, don't we still say the sun rises and sets? And is that necessarily non-literal? Rising and setting are relative terms anyway, and visually the sun does rise over the horizon and set relative to the horizon everyday. I don't say that to create a new doctrinal truth, or to say you should interpret it that way, but rather just to throw out a thought or two and some questions) The other verses speak of a miracle involving the sun differing from the usual course it takes. This is a miracle no matter what view of earth and sun positioning you take. If it seems improbable for it to take place in either one, that's kind of the point.

I believe the verses (and I'm speaking of the verses they listed not including the apocryphal books) to be true. And while I've never quite had the wide angle perspective to view the earth orbiting the sun, that's the way I would guess it happens. I don't see any condradiction in the two.

Happy Easter everyone.



I'm back, to let you know, I can REAAALLLY shake it down.

My sister in law says, "Happy Zombie Jesus Day!"